After Referendum Venezuela’s Maduro issues permits and claims to 2/3rds of Guyana territory; UN warns caution; is War possible?

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,851
Daps
204,037
Reppin
the ether
moving the goalposts, as you’re apt to do:

I said “de growth” is an unserious project.

You pivoted to say oil discoveries and resource curses are dangerous

NEITHER of which has anything to do with Venezuela engaging in Latin American imperialism


You're so completely full of shyt. :laff:

YOU pivoted to oil discoveries/resource curse in the supposed "degrowth" discussion. YOU randomly inserted a quote of me talking about Guyana in a different thread four years earlier. I hadn't said jack shyt about it in that discussion, so how can you claim I "pivoted" to it. It was YOU who brought it up first.

The post is right here:



How the fukk did you try and pin your own random deflection on me. :dead:

It's reached goddamn mental illness at this point.
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
324,139
Reputation
-34,136
Daps
631,803
Reppin
The Deep State
You're so completely full of shyt. :laff:

YOU pivoted to oil discoveries/resource curse in the supposed "degrowth" discussion.
No. YOU did because you were the one quote mining YOURSELF to deny being a “de growth leftist”…when I posted direct and immediate evidence of comments you made THIS WEEK proving you’re a de-growth leftist
YOU randomly inserted a quote of me talking about Guyana in a different thread four years earlier. I hadn't said jack shyt about it in that discussion, so how can you claim I "pivoted" to it. It was YOU who brought it up first.
Because you are against any form of the oil industry
How the fukk did you try and pin your own random deflection on me. :dead:

It's reached goddamn mental illness at this point.

Now you’re in here in a completely unrelated thread saying Venezuela deserves to invade Guyana because oil discoveries are bad?

My nikka are you OK? :gucci:
 

Freedman

Choppers For Karate Nggas
Joined
Jun 27, 2012
Messages
18,070
Reputation
6,010
Daps
88,878
Reppin
Louisiana
What’s does “US Military Support” look like ?? Weapons and supplies or actual boots on the ground
 

BigMoneyGrip

I'm Lamont's pops
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
82,357
Reputation
12,009
Daps
324,947
Reppin
Straight from Flatbush
1. To answer an earlier question, Guyana does not have a standing army but they have a defense force. It’s not going to strike fear into many nations however lol

2. Uncle Sam will step in, the British will step in. Venezuela can’t do this without major repercussions

3. Venezuelans are already in Guyana and this must be super awkward for them
This
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,851
Daps
204,037
Reppin
the ether
Because you are against any form of the oil industry

You already tried that lie in the last conversation, it didn't go well for you. Why are you trying again?

At some point in the 4-5 times I've called you out for lying about this claim, you should have quoted me saying that I'm "against any form of the oil industry" or "believe in zero oil", like you claimed before. Why can't you come up with any such quote?




Now you’re in here in a completely unrelated thread saying Venezuela deserves to invade Guyana because oil discoveries are bad?

My nikka are you OK? :gucci:

How the fukk is it "completely unrelated"? YOU are the one who tried to attack my position on Guyana just this week, and right here there's a major geopolitical event proving that my position was right.

My position on Guyana and oil is a hell of a lot more relevant to the actual Guyana and oil thread than to the fukking Desantis/Newsom debate where you brought it up. :deadrose:
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,851
Daps
204,037
Reppin
the ether
No. YOU did because you were the one quote mining YOURSELF to deny being a “de growth leftist”…when I posted direct and immediate evidence of comments you made THIS WEEK proving you’re a de-growth leftist

What the fukk does that have to do with your quoting a post about Guyana from 2019? I thought we were talking about the Guyana post, now you're bringing up a different exchange that had nothing to do with Guyana. Didn't you just accuse me of making deflections? And this would be a.....



You just accused me of deflecting to Guyana in that conversation. That was an outright lie, just like all your other outright lies that were dominating the conversation.


Here's the post, right here. Does it look like I'm the one who deflected to Guyana, or is that you?

 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
324,139
Reputation
-34,136
Daps
631,803
Reppin
The Deep State
You already tried that lie in the last conversation, it didn't go well for you. Why are you trying again?

At some point in the 4-5 times I've called you out for lying about this claim, you should have quoted me saying that I'm "against any form of the oil industry" or "believe in zero oil", like you claimed before. Why can't you come up with any such quote?






How the fukk is it "completely unrelated"? YOU are the one who tried to attack my position on Guyana just this week, and right here there's a major geopolitical event proving that my position was right.

My position on Guyana and oil is a hell of a lot more relevant to the actual Guyana and oil thread than to the fukking Desantis/Newsom debate where you brought it up. :deadrose:
what are you talking about?????????????????????????????????????????????

good fukking lord

YOU ARE AN ANTI OIL DE-GROWTH LEFTIST. PERIOD. YOU CAN’T DENY IT. YOU ARE. OWN IT. OR JUST IGNORE IT. YOU’RE NOT CHANGING MY OPINION ON THIS. YOU. ARE. ANTI. OIL. AT. ALL. COSTS. YOU LITERALLY SAID THIS. DOZENS OF TIMES.

Oh fukking hell.

You’ve completely fukked up because now I have to go pull quotes of you literally doing this shyt.

Your Guyanese position is completely tangential to this shyt.

Guyana using its natural resources is COMPLETELY irrelevant to Venezuela doing the Saddam-Kuwait play
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
324,139
Reputation
-34,136
Daps
631,803
Reppin
The Deep State
What the fukk does that have to do with your quoting a post about Guyana from 2019? I thought we were talking about the Guyana post, now you're bringing up a different exchange that had nothing to do with Guyana. Didn't you just accuse me of making deflections? And this would be a.....



You just accused me of deflecting to Guyana in that conversation. That was an outright lie, just like all your other outright lies that were dominating the conversation.


Here's the post, right here. Does it look like I'm the one who deflected to Guyana, or is that you?

This is an example of you being anti-oil because you dont like any use of oil even in poor countries looking to advance their societies.

And your example of resource curses was about DOMESTIC political corruption, not trans-national military conflicts.

5/6 of your arguments were about domestic issues. You only threw in that foreign line just to pretend to have a fully fleshed out argument but your entire post history in this thread and others are about how Middle East and African countries fukked up with corruption and poor development compared to countries like Norway.

I know this tactic when I see it. It’s your way of trying to evade future criticism by claiming to be on the record on all sides of an argument.

Smarten up cuz. We’ve seen this before. You’re not doing this shyt here.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,851
Daps
204,037
Reppin
the ether
Nap, one question.

Did you lie about me being responsible for the Guyana deflection in that thread, or not? Here is your exact claim:

I said “de growth” is an unserious project.

You pivoted to say oil discoveries and resource curses are dangerous


You claim I pivoted to oil discoveries and resource curses. That was an outright lie. Here is the exact post where you make the pivot by quoting a 4-year-old comment from a completely unrelated thread:



It wasn't me. So why'd you lie about it being me? Was it because you still can't address the actual topic, that my prediction about Guyana is proving correct?
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
324,139
Reputation
-34,136
Daps
631,803
Reppin
The Deep State
Nap, one question.

Did you lie about me being responsible for the Guyana deflection in that thread, or not? Here is your exact claim:




You claim I pivoted to oil discoveries and resource curses. That was an outright lie. Here is the exact post where you make the pivot by quoting a 4-year-old comment from a completely unrelated thread:



It wasn't me. So why'd you lie about it being me? Was it because you still can't address the actual topic, that my prediction about Guyana is proving correct?
You denied being anti-oil and a de-growth leftist

That post was used as evidence, in addition to other posts before and after that post, to prove that you are in fact: Anti-oil and a de-growth leftist

Your statement on Guyana’s oil fortunes is not key to the discussion taking place about the legitimacy of Guyana using its oil resources.

You can’t have it both ways. Either Guyana can’t develop its oil resources (because you’re anti-oil) or Guyana deserves what happens to it because you think it all supports your argument that all oil is bad.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
324,139
Reputation
-34,136
Daps
631,803
Reppin
The Deep State
To explain to anyone thats observing this.

@Rhakim is using an argument he made about a different critique he has over the legitimacy of poor countries using their resources, in a DIFFERENT argument denying that he’s against the use of oil resources to develop poor countries because he thinks climate change means poor countries should avoid economic growth that uses fossil fuels to any degree.

Now he’s circling back to the argument he made originally as proof he was correct when the argument is not about whether or not Guyana would face economic or military struggles.

He is claiming his prognostication means he isn’t anti-oil. Which is irrelevant. It’s a literal non-sequitur.

I’d say this exposes him as an intellectual lightweight who can’t admit he’s just so anti-ME that he can’t admit to just wanting to pick fights over silly shyt. If I had a different username he wouldn’t even want to argue. When its me, he just has to jump in the ring and he got caught up in the rhetorical net.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,851
Daps
204,037
Reppin
the ether
This is an example of you being anti-oil because you dont like any use of oil even in poor countries looking to advance their societies.

I said that petro-states usually fail to help their full populace, and that Guyana needed to study Norway's model because they're one of the few who have done it right.

You're claiming I am, I quote, "Against any form of the oil industry."


Saying that petro-states usually fail (but not always) is not the same as saying I'm against all forms of the oil industry. So you lied.




And your example of resource curses was about DOMESTIC political corruption, not trans-national military conflicts.

You are outright lying again.

The EXACT comment you quoted from me says that corruption, political divisions, FOREIGN INTERFERENCE, environmental destruction, and INCREASED POTENTIAL FOR CONFLICT were risks that Guyana faced with this oil discovery.

Why would you lie and claim I had only mentioned domesitic corruption?



5/6 of your arguments were about domestic issues. You only threw in that foreign line just to pretend to have a fully fleshed out argument but your entire post history in this thread and others are about how Middle East and African countries fukked up with corruption and poor development compared to countries like Norway.

I know this tactic when I see it. It’s your way of trying to evade future criticism by claiming to be on the record on all sides of an argument.


This is embarrassing. :deadrose:

So you first claim I didn't say it, now you're admitting that I did say it, but that it shouldn't count cause you don't want it to? :laff:

First off, I named two domestic issues (corruption and political division) and two international issues (foreign interference and potential for future conflicts). Environmental destruction is both domestic and international. Why lie and claim it was some totally domestic-focused argument just to avoid my clear prediction of shyt like this?

Second, are you seriously trying to claim that I've never talked about imperialist nations fukking with countries who have oil, in the EXACT same thread where you already posted a tweet accusing anti-imperialists of complaining about imperialist nations fukking with countries who have oil?


Pretend I've never talked about US interference in Iran for their oil, liar. Pretend I've never said that the US wars in Iraq were related to the fact they have oil, liar. Pretend I never said that greedy westerners, opportunistic asians, and rival neighbors were all threats to Congo in their resource trap, liar. Pretend I'm unaware of Iraq invading Kuwait or major international terrorist groups targeting oil drillers for profit, liar.
 

BigMan

Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
32,340
Reputation
5,642
Daps
89,596
Venezuela won’t do shyt and if they tried they will fail spectacularly even without a response from Guyana or any allies
 
Top